The present invention relates generally to feminine hygiene devices, and more particularly to a vaginal discharge collection device for collecting vaginal discharge. The present invention also elates generally to the intravaginal delivery of drugs and other substances.
From the time after World War I, when bandages were marketed as sanitary napkins, to the present, there have been essentially only two types of commercially available menstrual collection products: sanitary napkins and tampons. Sanitary napkins, including the newer pads and shields, have the disadvantages of bulk, odor and leakage. They also present disposal problems, and they are sometimes detectable to others. Their absorbent nature can also create problems of contamination and infection. Tampons are also disadvantageous. The basic design of the tampon does not stop leakage and the externally worn string can lead to contamination. Tampons have fibers which irritate the vaginal mucosa. Absorptive tampons can also contribute to serious infections.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,983,874 (Davis), 3,128,767 (Nolan), and 3,216,422 (Steiger) disclose absorptive cup-shaped vaginal tampons. These devices are bulky and would be difficult to use and uncomfortable to wear, and would have the same dangers of infection presented by conventional absorptive tampons. Other internal vaginal discharge collection devices are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,845,766 (Zoller), 3,841,333 (Zalucki), 3,626,942 (Waldron), 3,404,682 (Waldron), 2,616,426 (Gordon), 2,534,900 (Chalmers), 1,986,504 (Cubbon), and 71,414 (Rohleder). These devices all suffer from poor ergonomic design. They would be difficult to insert and remove, uncomfortable to wear, and/or unreliable.
The Waldron and Chalmers devices are worn in a lower region of the vaginal canal and generate suction, particularly during removal. The suction generated by the devices would also make the devices difficult to remove, and would tend to cause spillage.
Further, the Davis, Nolan, Gordon and Rohleder devices have rims with springs embedded therein. Such springs make the devices unnecessarily complicated and expensive to manufacture. The Zoller, Zalucki, Waldron and Chalmers devices have complicated configurations that would be relatively expensive to manufacture. The Cubbon device has a small flat loop vulcanized to the under edge of a rubber ring. Providing this loop complicates the device unnecessarily. The loop may also cause irritation during use. With or without the loop, the Cubbon device suffers from poor ergonomic design.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art for a vaginal discharge collection device that avoids the problems associated with napkins and tampons, and that is convenient, comfortable, reliable and economical.
Prior art systems for delivering drugs and other substances into the vaginal canal are disclosed by U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,895,170, (Tlapek), 4,589,880, (Dunn), 4,526,578 (Wong), 4,311,543 (Strickman), 4,286,587, (Wong), 4,219,016 (Drobish), 4,200,090 (Drobish), 4,198,976 (Drobish), and 4,198,965, (Strickman, and British Patents Nos. 260,600 (Fiessler) and 21,588 (Fickert). These devices are structurally unsatisfactory. For example, the Tlapek device has a semi-circular loop used for removal. This loop unnecessarily complicates the Tlapek device and may cause irritation during use. The Wong ('587) device has a circular cross section. As a result, this device would tend to twist upon compression, making insertion of the device difficult. All of the prior art systems would be difficult to insert and remove, uncomfortable to wear, unreliable, and/or uneconomical to manufacture and market.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art for an intravaginal substance delivery system that can be conveniently and reliably used, and that can be used without discomfort, particularly during menses.